View report page

12
Premises where Food is Prepared
Premises which manufacture, store or sell ice-cream, or prepare or manufacture sausages, potted,
pressed, pickled or preserved foods, including cooked meat or fish intended for sale, require to be registered
by the Council. If the Council refuses or cancels a registration the owner can appeal first to them and if
unsuccessful to a court of summary jurisdiction (Table 44).
Ice-cream sold within the borough reaches a high standard of purity (Table 11). All the premises
concerned were kept under constant observation; most of the ice-cream is manufactured outside the district,
and is usually pre-packed.
Education in Food Hygiene
Lectures and talks, illustrated with film shows, film-strips and bacteriological cultures, are given to
canteens staff, social and political organisations, and school-leavers.
Food Poisoning
It is pleasing to report that for the first time for several years there was no outbreak of food poisoning
in the borough. This is probably a reflection of the general improvement in the handling, preparation,
storage and sale of food.
Food Unfit for Human Consumption
More than 47 tons and 15,000 tins of food inspected by the Public Health Inspectors was found
to be unfit for human consumption (Table 45).
With the exception of the tomato pulp, which was used for pig food, all the food was dealt with as
trade refuse by the Borough Engineer's Department, and deposited on the controlled refuse tip.
Contaminated Food
There was an increase in the number of specimens of contaminated food dealt with by the Health
Department. These included a piece of metal in a chocolate toffee, a mouse in a packet of tea, maggots in
a nut toffee bar, dirt in a bottle of orange juice, metal in a ½lb. packet of butter, a cigarette-end in a loaf,
a piece of glass in a loaf, mouse excreta on a swiss bun, a nail in butter, a screw in a cake, metal millings
in a swiss roll, and glass in a half-pint bottle of milk.
Members of the public reported 34 specimens of contaminated food but no action was taken in 6
of them because there was no evidence that the firm concerned had been negligent. Of the remaining 28, 6
firms were prosecuted and 22 cautioned. Three of the prosecutions were successful with fines and costs
amounting to £20.0.0 and £8.8.0. Two cases were dismissed and one case was dismissed after appeal.
In addition, 5 dirty milk bottles and 1 dirty cream bottle were reported by other local authorities
and the public. Two milk bottles were referred to other local authorities for action as the milk was bottled
in their areas. The remaining 3 dirty milk bottles and the dirty cream bottle were reported to the Public
Health Committee and the Council prosecuted two dairies and administered a caution to 2. The 2 prosecutions
were successful with fines and costs amounting to £20 and £6.6.0.
Clean Food—Sampling
The Middlesex County Council is responsible for taking samples and for supervising the control of
food adulteration (Table 48). The Chief Officer of the Public Control Department has kindly supplied the
following information.
Of the 13 retailers who were concerned in the 15 samples found to be unsatisfactory, 4 were prosecuted.
4 were officially cautioned, and 3 amended their labels; no action was possible against the other 2.
Two greengrocers sold " Packham" pears as " William" pears. One was prosecuted on two
counts and was fined £5 in each case with 5 guineas costs; the other was fined £10 with 3 guineas costs.
Official cautions were issued to the retailers of the 2 samples of vinegar deficient in acetic acid and
to the baker who sold a cake as a " cream bar" but containing imitation cream. A cake described as a
" rum baba " contained only rum flavoured syrup, and the manufacturers amended their labels.
The 2 samples of spirits which were described as " pure white spirit" contained ethyl alcohol and
water with a very high proof spirit content. The importers communicated with the manufacturers, who
amended the labels. Sweets described as "fairy drops (milk)", but containing only skimmed milk, were
re-labelled.
Three of the samples of milk contained glass. Two of the dairies were prosecuted, I was fined £15
and 5 guineas costs but the other was discharged without a fine. No action was taken in the other case
because of insufficient evidence. The remaining 2 bottles contained aluminium foil bottle caps. An official
caution was issued in one.
Merchandise Marks Acts, 1887-1926
1,949 displays of articles of food were examined under the Mechandise Marks Acts, 1887-1926.
Verbal cautions were given for minor infringements. 28 convictions were obtained against 10 retailers for
describing incorrectly or not indicating the origin of imported foods.
Labelling of Food Order, 1953
410 articles of pre-packed food were examined under the Labelling of Food Order, 1953. Several
infringements were detected but no prosecutions were taken because the manufacturers took immediate steps
to correct the unsatisfactory labels.